Would you rather have a Dem presidential candidate who is smart OR honest (I think Hillary’s smart).

Remember: You HAVE to choose (this is theoretical).

I remember someone telling me that you couldn’t believe much of what Bill Clinton said on the campaign trail. My response was “good…’cause if I believed most of what he said I couldn’t vote for him.”

I always believed he would do many things I would agree with as president but things he could not (or would not)say on the campaign trail. And while it is true that he turned out to be a Dem who was pretty moderate he still proved to be a fairly good (and quite intelligent) president.

There are lots of democratic candidates I could support over Hillary—she is MUCH less progressive than I would like. But, I also have a strong feeling she would move strongly left to govern, especially if the Dems sweep into Congress big time next year. I see her as pragmatic and smart, and she’ll go after as much in the progressive agenda as she ultimately thinks she can get (regardless of how she talks now).

And while I don’t like her current militarism I don’t think she would be a “go it alone” president who would alienate the rest of the world making more enemies than new friends.

Sorry, I can't vote in your poll because I don't want either.

Is the dumb one smart enough to pick smart and ethical advisors?

if she gets the nomination. I think you're right about what she'd do if the Dems win more Congressional seats.

At least, I hope so.

I don't trust her...I think she's tied to the corporatist agenda. "Lobbyists represent REAL Americans" really pissed me off. Yeah, some DO. But some represent multi-national corporation and industries that are not, under any but the most ridiculous definition, "Americans" at all. And those are the ones currently fucking things up NOW.

:toast: :hi: :kick:

I want a president who is completely unlike the present one, who has neither brains nor honesty.

That combination really sucks.

Although at this point, almost anyone except Cheney would be an improvement.

One would think that in a country this size, finding someone with both should be easy. had Bush not existed, I would write that you really can not become President unless you are very intelligent.

He was no genius, but he could prevaricate and maneuver with the best of them. I'd put Harry Truman in center place for the 1st category (and arguably Jerry Ford).

My bias runs to smarts. But a moderately intelligent person who knows her limitations and can exercise common sense judgment (and accept common sense advise from smarty-pants advisors) is preferable to a Nixonesque genius.

I seriously can't see it myself......think it would be the *other way*.

For 16 years I have studied Bill Clinton's record with videotapes of most of his speeches.

I have presented this challenge to Limbaugh-Hannity-OReilly etc and no takers.

I issue it here. Please
e-mail me any statement he made ON POLICY which you consider a LIE(Intent to Deceive)
clarenceswinney@bellsouth.net

She has disappointed me but Bill will be biggest asset.

Can she duplicate Bill-Al great record of Accomplishments?

check it at
google
clarence swinney + praise Clinton-Gore

and I won't be allowing anyone to limit my choices to one or the other with some false assertion that smart candidates aren't honest, or honest candidates aren't smart.

...and they pick honest ones.

Smart people who have nonesty problems...always thinking of a way to get over on us. And they hire people who think the same.